Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Government The Almighty Buck United States Wireless Networking

Ex-FCC Commissioner Advises T-Mobile, Sprint On $26 Billion Merger (cnet.com) 36

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: Former FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn is working to help T-Mobile and Sprint get their $26 billion merger approved by regulators. Clyburn, a Democrat, confirmed she's working as a paid consultant to the carriers to advise them on their impending merger. The news of her involvement was first reported by Politico on Monday. The companies, whose merger was announced in April last year, need approval from the Federal Communications Commission and the US Department of Justice. "Affordable broadband access is a critical priority particularly for those Americans who are underserved or currently have no viable options at all," she said in an interview with CNET. "I am advising T-Mobile and Sprint as they seek to accelerate the creation of an inclusive nationwide 5G network on how best to build a bridge across the digital divide that currently exists in our country."

Clyburn's involvement in advising the merger is interesting because she was part of the majority on the FCC in 2011 that rejected the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, concluding that a reduction in the number of national carriers would harm consumers. When the idea of a merger between T-Mobile and Sprint was first floated in 2014, the Democratic-controlled FCC also signaled it wouldn't approve the deal for the same reason. [...] Executives for the companies say they will not raise rates on consumers. In a letter to the FCC on Monday, T-Mobile CEO John Legere made a personal pledge to regulators that the "New T-Mobile" would not raise prices on its service following the merger. Doing so, he said, would erode the relationship with T-Mobile customers.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ex-FCC Commissioner Advises T-Mobile, Sprint On $26 Billion Merger

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Both carriers are on completely different networks, so there is little synergy. ATT would screw up T-Mobile, but Sprint + T-Mobile would be worse. GSM and CDMA just don't splice.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      5G will bring all that together.
      5G will bring services to more parts of the USA.
      No more paper insulated wireline.
      Neighborhoods not yet gentrified will get their new 5G too.
      Education, computer games, movies, tv series, social media, intelligent assistants.
      5G and a 4K TV with lots of new ads.
      In every home with an intelligent assistant ready to respond to any new voice, sound, accent.
      The networks of the past will be replaced with the new 5G services.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        One 5G to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them...

    • Google Fi already uses both Sprint and T-Mobile’s networks. Many phone radios can communicate using either GSM or CDMA, and at this point LTE has largely replaced both of them. By the time the merger goes through and the new company is ready to start consolidating towers, 2G/3G will probably be a distant memory.

  • "I am advising T-Mobile and Sprint as they seek to accelerate the creation of an inclusive nationwide 5G network on how best to build a bridge across the digital divide that currently exists in our country."

    It's good that they are building inclusive 5G networks as opposed to the old racist 4G networks that had those header bits for black/hispanic recipients. I wonder if they will also be accepting of non-binary traffic?

  • Word vomit (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This is a plethora of marketing doublespeak. Here's one gem I've seen before:

    In a letter to the FCC on Monday, T-Mobile CEO John Legere made a personal pledge to regulators that the "New T-Mobile" would not raise prices on its service following the merger

    They won't raise prices following the merger. No. They'll wait 3 whole minutes and then raise prices in a completely unrelated way.

    This entire pledge is devoid of content. How about putting some measurable numbers on that? How about "not raise prices on its services in the 12 months following the merger". And if he doesn't dare to (he won't), ask him why he doesn't.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I have a better idea.

      Get a large swath of customers together, say 60% of the customer base, and have them all co-ordinate to not pay their T-mobile and sprint bills.

      We were promised savings, no? I think free is savings.

      And you watch the chaos as the companies finanices discintegrate and a thousand mini carriers buy up the equipment and take their place.

    • Will prices go up? As sure as the sun shines during the day....

      Don't forget though that building out a 5G network to replace Sprint and T-Mobile's existing is what this merger thing is really about. Both companies own existing spectrum space, tower space and a subscriber base that will make the transition to 5G over time. Having a bigger network is an advantage when dealing with equipment vendors, having a larger subscriber base allows these costs to be passed on at a lower cost per subscriber, and havi

    • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      They won't raise prices following the merger. No. They'll wait 3 whole minutes and then raise prices in a completely unrelated way.

      This kind of misses the point. The reason that reducing the number of carriers hurts consumers is that it reduces consumer choice. Even if the prices don't change as a result (and they might not), the fact remains that different carriers have different plans with different options. Some people might prefer unlimited data. Others might prefer a cheaper, metered plan. Some mi

    • This is a plethora of marketing doublespeak. Here's one gem I've seen before:

      In a letter to the FCC on Monday, T-Mobile CEO John Legere made a personal pledge to regulators that the "New T-Mobile" would not raise prices on its service following the merger

      They won't raise prices following the merger. No. They'll wait 3 whole minutes and then raise prices in a completely unrelated way.

      This entire pledge is devoid of content. How about putting some measurable numbers on that? How about "not raise prices on its services in the 12 months following the merger".

      How does 3 years sound?

      T-Mobile promises not to raise prices for 3 years if Sprint merger is approved [usatoday.com]

      T-Mobile CEO John Legere typically proposes deals to wireless consumers. Now he is offering one to the Federal Communications Commission.

      If the FCC approves the telecom company's $26 billion merger with competitor Sprint, T-Mobile will put price increases on hold for three years, Legere said in note sent this week to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.

  • Well DUH! (Score:4, Funny)

    by p51d007 ( 656414 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @08:55AM (#58078090)
    "Clyburn's involvement in advising the merger is interesting because she was part of the majority on the FCC in 2011 that rejected the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, concluding that a reduction in the number of national carriers would harm consumers." Well, she wasn't being paid a buttload of MONEY then!
  • by Anonymous Coward

    "Executives for the companies say they will not raise rates on consumers. In a letter to the FCC on Monday, T-Mobile CEO John Legere made a personal pledge to regulators that the "New T-Mobile" would not raise prices on its service following the merger. Doing so, he said, would erode the relationship with T-Mobile customers."

    Will they put it in legal writing, that if they do they would lose their bonuses, from that point on for the entire time they are in that position and no exit bonuses.

    Do that then they

  • by kenh ( 9056 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @09:22AM (#58078222) Homepage Journal

    A former regulator that sold-out once they left office and entered the private sector - now that IS news!

    Seriously?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      So what? I mean, what do you expect her to do for the rest of her carrier? Dig ditches? This is an area she knows, she should apply her knowledge.

      • I think there's a strong argument for basically pensioning senior bureaucrats once they leave their post. Basically the deal should be "You work for us in a senior position for over a year, you get a lifetime pension with an annual amount equal to your salary (or heck, triple your annual salary), but you can never ever ever work in any capacity in any industry related to what you were responsible for. If you do, not only will you lose your pension, but you will be fined some obscene amount of money equal to

        • "You work for us in a senior position for over a year, you get a lifetime pension with an annual amount equal to your salary (or heck, triple your annual salary), but you can never ever ever work in any capacity in any industry related to what you were responsible for. If you do, not only will you lose your pension, but you will be fined some obscene amount of money equal to that of the GDP of some equatorial African nation and spend years in a prison cell.

          "But I have never worked since I quit the governmen

      • Re:Wow! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @10:54AM (#58078712)

        So what? I mean, what do you expect her to do for the rest of her carrier? Dig ditches? This is an area she knows, she should apply her knowledge.

        So teach, speak, become a TV talking head, use connections to help towns set up municipal ISPs, etc. You know, jobs/activities that don't involve you taking money from businesses that you used to regulate.

      • in the DoD there is a waiting period you have to go through before you are allowed to go to work for any company you used to have oversight of... is this not the case for the FCC?
    • Corruption of FCC commissioners is a known problem, but this isn't a good example. Selling out the public after leaving office isn't nearly as much of a problem as selling out the public while still in office. You could point to Ajit Pai, and that would probably be accurate, but there are even better examples [dslreports.com] than him.
  • I don't understand why people would be resistant to this merger, really? Sprint is a dying company that's been up for grabs for a while now. Their cellular service has lousy coverage and they've resorted to heavily discounting iPhones to get people to take their garbage network.

    In that light, we're not losing much of anything by having Sprint go away. T-Mobile has been growing, but is still the "underdog" compared to Verizon or AT&T. If they can make use of the Sprint network as something to supplement

    • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      I don't understand why people would be resistant to this merger, really? Sprint is a dying company that's been up for grabs for a while now. Their cellular service has lousy coverage and they've resorted to heavily discounting iPhones to get people to take their garbage network.

      That's not my experience in the Bay Area. I've found them to be more reliable in the places I care about than AT&T was, and a close second to Verizon. Perhaps you just live in a place where it isn't financially viable for more

  • TMO boss made a "personal pledge" not to raise prices? I see that and raise him to add this language to their T&Cs:

    "T-Mobile and Sprint Wireless will not raise your rate for your current services nor for any services you add so long as your contract stays in force. We will not update our T&Cs to allow us to raise your rate during this time. If you renew your service we will keep the same rate active."

    NOW THAT'S A PLEDGE.

    DO THAT, JOHN "ARE YOU TELLING THE TRUTH OR ARE YOU LYING" LEGERE!

    Ehud
    P.S. I'

  • right up there with "I won't cum inside you."

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Working...